关于Ving用法—og12 sc 中21和og25比较，有点迷惑了

浅浅123 · 发表于 2012-2-27 20:18:34

Baby姐，主要不是ving放在句首的情况啊，我指的是第二点，因为在总结having done的用法的是时候，又想到了这道题，觉得像yiayia之前总结的说s,ving....,vo    ving做none modifier的话就是错的，这边having done，是只能做状语的，不能做定语  所以我觉得总结的第二点 “ <div style="text-align:left;">2)S,V+ing,VO 修饰主语 noun modifier </div> <div style="text-align:left;">Neuroscientists, V-ing, verb + object. </div> ” 有待商榷

babybearmm · 发表于 2012-2-28 08:12:22

这个就是noun modifier，没错的。你注意这部分前后的逗号成对，所以是插入，是non-essential modifier. 下面两个句子，我们假设没有上下文。 1. Tom's father, having come to school early this morning, came to school again just now. 2. The man having come to school early this morning came to school again just now. 这两句中，"having come to school early this morning"都是noun modifier，修饰前面的主语。 第一句话，两边都有逗号，是插入的non-essential noun modifier。就算去掉，我们也知道说的是"Tom's father"，非常明确。这个v-ing modifier只是对主语作补充说明。 第二句话，"having come to school early this morning"是essential noun modifier. 假如去掉，就是"The man came to school again just now." 读者并不知道"the man"是谁，所以必须要加"having come to school early this morning"来告诉读者，我说的就是那人。 neuroscientist那句话，属于第一种情况。 至于句末的"comma+v-ing"一定是状语，这是完全不同的话题。咱这里讨论的是插入语，就是逗号成对。 

<div class="maxcode-quote">
Baby姐，主要不是ving放在句首的情况啊，我指的是第二点，因为在总结having done的用法的是时候，又想到了这道题，觉得像yiayia之前总结的说s,ving....,vo    ving做none modifier的话就是错的，这边having done，是只能做状语的，不能做定语  所以我觉得总结的第二点 “ <div style="text-align:left;">2)S,V+ing,VO 修饰主语 noun modifier </div> <div style="text-align:left;">Neuroscientists, V-ing, verb + object. </div> ” 有待商榷<div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 浅浅123 (2012/2/27 20:18:34)</div> 
</div>

babybearmm · 发表于 2012-2-28 08:18:15

“having done是不能充充当定语的” 这是xdf误人子弟吧？Forget about it. 纯粹乱说

qiuhua01234567 · 发表于 2012-3-3 14:31:33

<div class="maxcode-quote">
其实无论从语法还是意思上来说，这题正确选项"using..."都可以说是perfect! 如果你实在非常十分无比喜欢用based on，你可以说 Scholars have painted X based on Y. 这里你就把noun modifier "based on Y" 放在了它修饰的对象X旁边了，正确。 （原话是把"based on Y"作为opening modifier (initial modifier)来修饰主语scholars，这就是错误。） 但是，你这句话又有了新的问题：Scholars have painted X based on Y. 我们的X=a sketchy picture of the activities of an all-female cult that, perhaps as early as the sixth century B.C., worshipped a goddess known in Latin as Bona Dea, “the good goddess.” 看到了么？尽管X中心词就是picture，但X实在太长了，结构太繁杂了，你如果还要用"based on Y"来修饰X，你那个"based on Y"往哪里搁？搁不下了啊<img src="/static/legacy-emoticon/1.gif" emoticon="[em:1]" alt="" /> 这是我为什么说这句话的正确选项perfect的其一。当你把"based on Y"变成"using Y"，放到句首的时候，这个句子结构非常平衡，有种建筑美。 其二，你一直坚持说要有"base on"的意思，但如果我们深入理解这句话，sticking to the LITERAL meaning of "use" and "based on"，你就能发现 "using ..." PRECISELY conveys the intended meaning of this sentence. 引用Ron的话吧： In your OG example, the word (based) now has an -ed ending, not an -ing ending. This is now a noun modifier, and the first noun after the comma is scholars. So it basically says the scholars themselves are "based on accounts of various ancient writers." That's not what we want to say; we want to say the scholars used the accounts of various ancient writers to do something else. So we change to an -ing form (using) so that we can correctly modify the clause: scholars have painted X using accounts of Y. 至于你选的C，"With accounts of various ancient writers used for a basis" 一方面，如OG所说，wordy & awkward. What do you mean by "used for a basis"?  What is "a basis"? The word "basis" alone is non-sense. You should be specific - define the basis by the expression "a basis of sth". 这就是我觉得basis的问题。 另外，是"with"的问题，刚才Ron那段话说得很明白，这里using的表达很精确。 而with是干吗的？表伴随。ok, 那怎么个伴随法？ with表伴随的情况太多了，我随便造个句子： I went shopping with my friend.    这是表伴随 I went shopping with coupons (and got some good deals).    这也是表伴随 这两个句子都是很正确的，没问题。 但是，同样是表伴随，伴随朋友和伴随coupon，是一回事么？你能把朋友揣兜里么？能牵着coupon的小手么？<img src="/static/legacy-emoticon/0.gif" emoticon="[em:0]" alt="" /> 这就是为什么，我以前看到过一个说法，说GMAT里通常认为with开头的结构模糊，GMAT不喜欢。 没错，你能用using来精确地表达你的意思，为啥用模糊表伴随的with? GMAT永远是追求表达的effectiveness。 当然，存在很多with的正确句子，所以那个说法不全对，可你仔细分析，就会发现在那些句子里，with结构对于表意非常的effective. 所以我建议，从正确句子中学习GMAT(也就是scholarly english)的表达，关注逻辑含义，同时对于关键的字词要stick to the literal meaning. 

<div class="maxcode-quote">
非常感谢baby姐的回答，意思是with sth. for a basis没有这个短语吗？我读的时候也觉得有点别扭，可是不敢肯定是否真的有此短语，又觉得E没有base on的意思，就排了DE直接选了C了。。。 其实还是在心里翻译成中文，成习惯了。。<div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 翼adobe (2012/2/13 17:38:06)</div> 
</div>
<div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 babybearmm (2012/2/13 19:29:11)</div> 
</div>
 赞。。逻辑的语法。。顿悟。。。

Suri在奋斗 · 发表于 2012-3-4 12:37:22

之前也搞混过一点 svo，done这点，觉得done既可能做定语也可以做状语 今天看了baby姐姐的那个pdf现在明白了是 Verb-ed Modifiers Modifies Closest Noun 优先做定语修饰离得最近的名词

MsDoughnut · 发表于 2012-3-4 16:39:23

<div class="maxcode-quote">
suridd，你举的都不矛盾的 咱从头说起，v-ing作为modifier，有两种，一种是noun modifier，一种是adverbial modifier，前者遵从touch rule（一般说来noun modifier都遵从touch rule）。 如果v-ing放在句首，那么就必然是作为noun modifier，修饰——主语（必然的，遵从touch rule，最近的noun当然是主语啦）。你给出的第二个例句: "Using ..., scholars ...."就是很典型的例子，"using ..."作为noun modifier，修饰scholars. 再看你的第一个例子： Neuroscientists, V-ing, verb + object. 这句话，v-ing也必然是noun modifier。为什么？ 你想啊，假如你当它是adverbial modifier，来修饰一个完整的句子(entire action)的话，在这里不存在，对不对？v-ing前面仅仅只有一个名词neuroscientists，并不存在一个clause (entire action)。而这句话"主谓宾"，v-ing插在了主语和谓语之间，破坏了这个“主谓宾”的intactness，所以不能作为adverbial modifier，而应该作为noun modifier，就说是插入成分，来描述这个主语。 

<div class="maxcode-quote">
21 Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood, are now drawing solid conclusions about how the human brain grows and how babies acquire language. (A) Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood, are (B) Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood over the past twenty years, and are (C) Neuroscientists amassing a wealth of knowledge about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood over the past twenty years, and are (D) Neuroscientists have amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood, (E) Neuroscientists have amassed, over the past twenty years, a wealth of knowledge about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood 正确答案是A，而D,El两个选项，首先错误是使句子逻辑重心发生变化，其次是Ving放在主谓宾结构之后，与谓语动词同时发生表伴随，此时用现在时修饰现在完成时的主句是错误的 在og sc 25中 Based on accounts of various ancient writers, scholars have painted a sketchy picture of the activities of an all-female cult that, perhaps as early as the sixth century B.C., worshipped a goddess known in Latin as Bona Dea, “the good goddess.” (A) Based on accounts of various ancient writers, (B) Basing it on various ancient writers’ accounts, (C) With accounts of various ancient writers used for a basis, (D) By the accounts of various ancient writers they used, (E) Using accounts of various ancient writers 正确答案是是E，using accounts of various ancient writers，主句中是scholars have painted a sketchy picture of the activities 这样是矛盾了么，还是using accounts of various ancient writers,仅仅就只修饰scholars吗？？还是using accounts of various ancient writers 是一个方式状语，并不要求从句时态与主句时态一致？？求解！！<div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 Suri在奋斗 (2012/1/23 15:28:51)</div> 
</div>
<div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 babybearmm (2012/2/3 13:30:44)</div> 
</div>
 我想请问一下啊，那个Ving放在句子中间的时候是可以做状语啊。就是说它向后伴随动词。还是说只要想你总结的那样，只要Ving前面只有noun的话，它势必只能是个noun modifier？

Suri在奋斗 · 发表于 2012-3-4 16:58:54

<div class="maxcode-quote">

<div class="maxcode-quote">
suridd，你举的都不矛盾的 咱从头说起，v-ing作为modifier，有两种，一种是noun modifier，一种是adverbial modifier，前者遵从touch rule（一般说来noun modifier都遵从touch rule）。 如果v-ing放在句首，那么就必然是作为noun modifier，修饰——主语（必然的，遵从touch rule，最近的noun当然是主语啦）。你给出的第二个例句: "Using ..., scholars ...."就是很典型的例子，"using ..."作为noun modifier，修饰scholars. 再看你的第一个例子： Neuroscientists, V-ing, verb + object. 这句话，v-ing也必然是noun modifier。为什么？ 你想啊，假如你当它是adverbial modifier，来修饰一个完整的句子(entire action)的话，在这里不存在，对不对？v-ing前面仅仅只有一个名词neuroscientists，并不存在一个clause (entire action)。而这句话"主谓宾"，v-ing插在了主语和谓语之间，破坏了这个“主谓宾”的intactness，所以不能作为adverbial modifier，而应该作为noun modifier，就说是插入成分，来描述这个主语。 

<div class="maxcode-quote">
21 Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood, are now drawing solid conclusions about how the human brain grows and how babies acquire language. (A) Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood, are (B) Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood over the past twenty years, and are (C) Neuroscientists amassing a wealth of knowledge about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood over the past twenty years, and are (D) Neuroscientists have amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood, (E) Neuroscientists have amassed, over the past twenty years, a wealth of knowledge about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood 正确答案是A，而D,El两个选项，首先错误是使句子逻辑重心发生变化，其次是Ving放在主谓宾结构之后，与谓语动词同时发生表伴随，此时用现在时修饰现在完成时的主句是错误的 在og sc 25中 Based on accounts of various ancient writers, scholars have painted a sketchy picture of the activities of an all-female cult that, perhaps as early as the sixth century B.C., worshipped a goddess known in Latin as Bona Dea, “the good goddess.” (A) Based on accounts of various ancient writers, (B) Basing it on various ancient writers’ accounts, (C) With accounts of various ancient writers used for a basis, (D) By the accounts of various ancient writers they used, (E) Using accounts of various ancient writers 正确答案是是E，using accounts of various ancient writers，主句中是scholars have painted a sketchy picture of the activities 这样是矛盾了么，还是using accounts of various ancient writers,仅仅就只修饰scholars吗？？还是using accounts of various ancient writers 是一个方式状语，并不要求从句时态与主句时态一致？？求解！！<div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 Suri在奋斗 (2012/1/23 15:28:51)</div> 
</div>
<div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 babybearmm (2012/2/3 13:30:44)</div> 
</div>
 我想请问一下啊，那个Ving放在句子中间的时候是可以做状语啊。就是说它向后伴随动词。还是说只要想你总结的那样，只要Ving前面只有noun的话，它势必只能是个noun modifier？<div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 MsDoughnut (2012/3/4 16:39:23)</div> 
</div>
一般的这样放是有歧义 s,ving ,do so 一般不倾向于用现在分词短语前后加“，”放在句子中间作状语的用法 因为这样会有歧义，不知道是向前修饰主语还是向后修饰 根据具体情况来定

babybearmm · 发表于 2012-3-5 06:29:06

关于你的问题，看这句话： Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood, are now drawing solid conclusions about how the human brain grows and how babies acquire language. 我想说，", having amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood,"必须是做定语修饰前面的主语neuroscientists，一定一定不能理解为作状语修饰整句话。为什么？我来解释。 "comma+v-ing"如果作为状语(adverbial modifier)，在逻辑意思上有严格要求。 以下from Ron: the "comma + ing" modifier should only be used when: (A) it MODIFIES THE ENTIRE ACTION of the preceding clause, and it APPLIES TO THE SUBJECT of that clause; AND (B) one of the following is true: (1) the "ing" action is SIMULTANEOUS with, and SUBORDINATE to, the main action; - i ran down the sidewalk, flapping my arms wildly (2) the "ing" action is a DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCE of the main action. - i got a 100 on the most recent exam,bringing my average up to 91 Stacey举了个很好的例子，请仔细体会一下： Slipping on the ice, I fell and broke my ankle. (Ouch!) --> I'm not just trying to say that *I* slipped on the ice. I'm trying to say that, as a result of slipping on the ice, *I fell.* I slipped on the ice, breaking my ankle. --> again, it's not just that I broke my ankle - it's that I broke it because I slipped. Note that I wouldn't say: I fell and broke my ankle, slipping on the ice. Why not? --> In general, there's a sequence to these constructions. The thing that's written first happens first, and the second thing happens after, as a result of, as a consequence of the first thing. 由此可见，"comma+v-ing"作为状语，如果不是"simultaneously with"那种情况，就必须表达"direct and immediate consequence". 那么看这个句子： Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood, are now drawing solid conclusions about how the human brain grows and how babies acquire language. 如果你理解成作为状语，逻辑上就是有问题的。因为"mass a wealth of knowledge over the past 20 years about ..."与"now draw solid conclusion ..."这两件事情的关系，既不是"simultaneously with"，也不是"direct and immediate consequence"   你可以结合科学常识去理解，科学家过去做了那么一大堆发现，现在要得出一个solid conclusion，这个过程需要大量的统计分析、归纳、讨论etc.。这完全不像“我这次考了100分，平均分立刻到了91”那么的straightforward. 所以不是direct，也不是immediate. 所以，这里我们必须理解为，是作定语修饰neuroscientists. 这里看上去v-ing前面有个逗号，但其实是一前一后的两个逗号成对，表示的是插入成分。 还是那句话，语法规则不能解决很多SC问题，要靠句意逻辑。 

<div class="maxcode-quote">
我想请问一下啊，那个Ving放在句子中间的时候是可以做状语啊。就是说它向后伴随动词。还是说只要想你总结的那样，只要Ving前面只有noun的话，它势必只能是个noun modifier？<div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 MsDoughnut (2012/3/4 16:39:23)</div> 
</div>

MsDoughnut · 发表于 2012-3-5 11:37:17

<div class="maxcode-quote">
关于你的问题，看这句话： Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood, are now drawing solid conclusions about how the human brain grows and how babies acquire language. 我想说，", having amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood,"必须是做定语修饰前面的主语neuroscientists，一定一定不能理解为作状语修饰整句话。为什么？我来解释。 "comma+v-ing"如果作为状语(adverbial modifier)，在逻辑意思上有严格要求。 以下from Ron: the "comma + ing" modifier should only be used when: (A) it MODIFIES THE ENTIRE ACTION of the preceding clause, and it APPLIES TO THE SUBJECT of that clause; AND (B) one of the following is true: (1) the "ing" action is SIMULTANEOUS with, and SUBORDINATE to, the main action; - i ran down the sidewalk, flapping my arms wildly (2) the "ing" action is a DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCE of the main action. - i got a 100 on the most recent exam,bringing my average up to 91 Stacey举了个很好的例子，请仔细体会一下： Slipping on the ice, I fell and broke my ankle. (Ouch!) --> I'm not just trying to say that *I* slipped on the ice. I'm trying to say that, as a result of slipping on the ice, *I fell.* I slipped on the ice, breaking my ankle. --> again, it's not just that I broke my ankle - it's that I broke it because I slipped. Note that I wouldn't say: I fell and broke my ankle, slipping on the ice. Why not? --> In general, there's a sequence to these constructions. The thing that's written first happens first, and the second thing happens after, as a result of, as a consequence of the first thing. 由此可见，"comma+v-ing"作为状语，如果不是"simultaneously with"那种情况，就必须表达"direct and immediate consequence". 那么看这个句子： Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood, are now drawing solid conclusions about how the human brain grows and how babies acquire language. 如果你理解成作为状语，逻辑上就是有问题的。因为"mass a wealth of knowledge over the past 20 years about ..."与"now draw solid conclusion ..."这两件事情的关系，既不是"simultaneously with"，也不是"direct and immediate consequence"   你可以结合科学常识去理解，科学家过去做了那么一大堆发现，现在要得出一个solid conclusion，这个过程需要大量的统计分析、归纳、讨论etc.。这完全不像“我这次考了100分，平均分立刻到了91”那么的straightforward. 所以不是direct，也不是immediate. 所以，这里我们必须理解为，是作定语修饰neuroscientists. 这里看上去v-ing前面有个逗号，但其实是一前一后的两个逗号成对，表示的是插入成分。 还是那句话，语法规则不能解决很多SC问题，要靠句意逻辑。 

<div class="maxcode-quote">
我想请问一下啊，那个Ving放在句子中间的时候是可以做状语啊。就是说它向后伴随动词。还是说只要想你总结的那样，只要Ving前面只有noun的话，它势必只能是个noun modifier？<div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 MsDoughnut (2012/3/4 16:39:23)</div> 
</div>
<div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 babybearmm (2012/3/5 6:29:06)</div> 
</div>
 谢谢你，这个对我帮助很大。我一直弄不清楚。但是就像你说的，它作为状语错误了，我在看到这个选项的时候就很容易把它排除了因为我觉得它夹心修饰了。因为它放在了主语和谓语中间。我现在规则看太多，但是反而实践的时候错误率开始上升了，很纠结。

潇湘妃子zwhj · 发表于 2012-3-8 21:08:13

<div class="maxcode-quote">
回楼上，我觉得句首的"v-ing+comma"，不用纠结到底是定语还是状语，不管是啥，都必须apply to the subject就行，咱只需要理解句意做对题目，GMAT不考语法术语。 另：附件是e-gmat对v-ing&v-ed modifiers的全总结（就一个图），我觉得很赞<div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 babybearmm (2012/2/27 19:53:21)</div> 
</div>
 看了PDF的summary，但是我不明白的是，为什么V-ed没有分在句首还是句尾，有没有逗号的情况呢。 比如这个帖子讨论的OG12-25和OG12的28题比，一个based on在句首，一个based on在句尾带逗号，这两个情况呢？

关于Ving用法—og12 sc 中21和og25比较，有点迷惑了

所属分类: 小分队

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()